Appeals to Authority

I'm putting my reply to this thoughtful comment on the "Everyone Has a Limit" thread below as a post, since I think it needs highlighting.

Michael, actually I almost immediately came to regret the "professional philosopher" line. As you point out, the appeal to authority isn't a good one when you do it yourself. OTOH, if you visit the original thread, I'm confident that other professional philosophers and / or philosophy students would immediately recognize Nuzzolillo for the obnoxious blowhard he is, trying mightily to disguise his one-trick-pony status (the ticking bomb, of course) with blown-up jargon and perhaps even more maddeningly, his false civility. So I was not only saddened by his mis-use of philosophical jargon, but also that the others didn't seem to have caught on that he didn't know what he was talking about, AND that his "civility" had further hoodwinked them into thinking torture apologists deserve civility in return. So I wanted to puncture his pretense and wound his vanity by pulling rank on him. But as soon as I hit "post" I realized two things: (1) that the "professional philosopher" line would get rejected for the reasons you cite, and that (2) "refuting" him would be a waste of time, as anyone today in 2007 who doesn't  immediately recognize and reject the ticking bomb scenario is a lost cause.

So I shifted gears in my subsequent comments to the morality argument: I argued that I shouldn't engage Nuzzolillo not because his arguments were crappy, but because it would be unjust to do so, as it would legitimate his depravity as something worthy of refutation rather than scorn. In effect I just didn't see the post over there as a "teaching moment"; I saw it as a terrible symptom of decay in our culture. So I guess you could say that I failed as a philosopher IFF one sees an absolute imperative to engage each and every instance of "argument." But I don't see it that way. But I shouldn't have used the "professional philosopher" line. I should have just pointed him out as a purveyor of the beyond-shoddy ticking bomb scenario and thus as a depraved torture apologist.

Comments

[whatever]

For someone that goes around declaring others to be buffoons and blowhards while declaring yourself to be an expert and dismissing their understanding of logical fallacies.... You're quite the philosopher and just a beautiful example of arrogant ignorant academic.

I'll let Marshall McCluhan make the case against you.

[John Protevi]

Whatever, there's just one problem with your analogy: it makes no sense. Who is the Marshall McLuhan that I've misunderstood?

[Jon Cogburn]

whatever- Are you on second or third? I forget, but I was never clear who was on first for that matter.

In any case, if you are going dispute someone else's expertise at recognizing logical fallacies, shouldn't you yourself give an argument rather than just engage in name calling? The fallacy you commit in your missive is called the "ad hominem" by the way. I realize that I am almost certainly wasting my time here. . .

[Jon Cogburn]

whatever- Are you on second or third? I forget, but I was never clear who was on first for that matter.

In any case, if you are going dispute someone else's expertise at recognizing logical fallacies, shouldn't you yourself give an argument rather than just engage in name calling? The fallacy you commit in your missive is called the "ad hominem" by the way. I realize that I am almost certainly wasting my time here. . .

[justsomeguy]

DOCTOR John Proveti, your arrogant posts show that being a philosopher has been reduced to merely being a professional. I used to think being a philosopher involved being wise. You have depressed me.

--No offense intented, some undergraduate student of philosophy

[John Protevi]

You're depressed? In commenting on the post in which I admit invoking my professional status was wrong, you complain about ... my invoking my professional status. Oy.

[Iron Man]

"Ad hominem"? What had he called it prior to that point? "Hominum"? It annoys me when people who don't actually know Latin try to use Latin. I wouldn't put it past him or anyone else, though (using hominum, that is). It certainly looks like the accusative of a masculine Latin noun, doesn't it? And Ad certainly does take the accusative.

And assuredly, "hominum" is a real form of the noun. The problem is that the noun isn't "hominus." The noun is "Homo." The genitive of the word is "Hominis."

"Hominum" is the plural genitive of the word.

At any rate, I think that people tend to judge the "inarguable" based on their own presuppositions. I agree that there are moral absolutes, and everyone ultimately cannot deny them.

We both agree that murder is wrong, and furthermore we both agree that needlessly causing undue pain is truly a bad thing.

The problem is that sometimes the "inarguables" aren't that simple.

If you were talking about "torture" on the other thread (and I think you were), I'd like to point out that the practice has been around and been used by perfectly legitimate governments from the dawn of time. Granted, I agree that torture is entirely wrong (And I am pretty sure this is the teaching of the Church, with which I cannot disagree)...but in the face of what occassionally appears to be the greater evil (for example, immanent danger), this ceases to be so clear to a lot of people.

Some things become even less clear when moral absolutes seem to contradict each other in a given case...for example, in abortion.

Every person agrees that, generally speaking, bodily integrity is a good thing. People shouldn't do things to a person's body if that person isn't ok with it.

On the other hand, generally speaking, murder (defined here as the intentional execution of an innocent human person) is also universally accepted as being a grave wrong.

These tensions become greater when two people have entirely different philosophical worldviews. If a Platonist is talking to an Atomist...well...things might not go to well.

The Atomist (most likely turning to Epicureanism or Utilitarianism for his ethics) will not at all entertain the views of the Platonist (looking to the Forms as an example of right ways of behaving).

Ah well.

At any rate, I don't think that you were wrong in citing the fact that you are a professional philosopher (slash French speaking person). If anyone knows anything about fallacies, it should be the guy who teaches courses on them. No?

[Mark Silcox]

'Whatever's purported link to McLuhan, by the way, is actually just a link to the scene from Annie Hall where McLuhan says to some guy "Dude, you're wrong," or something like that. Admittedly, McLuhan himself never did much better than this at formulating a coherent argument. But when your idea of contributing to the discussion page on a blog is by posting a phony link to a phony depiction of a phony argument made by a well-known phony, you sure are building yourself one big-assed glass house to live in.